thehomer:

So there is no free will in heaven? I think many Christian philosophers and the Bible disagree with you. e.g do angels have free-will? Keep in mind the fact that some of them were kicked out of heaven.

There is no consensus on whether there is free will in heaven or not.All talk of such is pure speculation.majority of the articles i have read on the discussion support the idea that there is no free will in heaven.In heaven, God's direct presence removes any Moral free will.God is no longer "hidden".there is no epistemic distance.His existence is overwhelming to those in heaven.Free will on earth can be attributed to God's hiddenness, so to speak.God has not made his existence overwhelmingly obvious so as to erase creaturely Moral freedom.He has created humans at some sort of epistemic distance to allow people to make free decisions.

In the case of the fallen angels, at the beginning of creation, it is possible that God created these creatures with some sort of Epistemic distance that gave them free will to chose to rebel or not.

You said Christian philosophers don't agree with that premise. My point is that their agreement is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

My point was, the implication that Christian Philsosphers or Christians in general believe that "A perfectly Good God would want to remove all evil".I was not speaking about the truth or falsity of the statement.

What will reading those works show?

Reading those works will enlighten you alot about the logical problem of evil.Don't you think its wise to be properly informed of arguments and counter arguments of a subject that you are participating in?

If you think they solve the problem, then by all means, use the best one in your argument.

I already have.in summary, God cannot actualise a world where Free willed beings commit no evil(partly due to Transworld depravity)and, as long as there is such an epistemic distance between Him and humans.i.e He retains the property of hiddenness.

Well now you know. He commanded such atrocities in the Bible. You could take a look at Numbers 31.

Not interested.The problem with quoting scriptures, is, the argument will end up being about interpretations, context, bible exegesis.Which i have no clue on, and am 80% sure you that you are no Biblical scholar yourself( NOTE:Biblical scholarship is not reserved to theists only.Bart Erhman, a brilliant atheist Biblical Scholar comes to mind).

If you disagree, then you need to present some argument supporting your case.



By okay, I take it that you mean the Christian God is the one under discussion.

yes.

alvinplatinga are you nigerian ? how did you get that name ?

buzugee: alvinplatinga are you nigerian ? how did you get that name ?

I am not a nigerian, I will keep my country of origin a secret for the time being... though, i am from Africa.Alvin Plantinga is not my real name, its the name of a Christian analytical philosopher whose works i have been reading for the last 4 years or so.

AlvinPlantinga:

I am not a nigerian, I will keep my country of origin a secret for the time being... though, i am from Africa.Alvin Plantinga is not my real name, its the name of a Christian analytical philosopher whose works i have been reading for the last 4 years or so.

AHHHHHHH mucho gracias my fellow african brother. hope the weekend is going nicely Sir

buzugee: AHHHHHHH mucho gracias my fellow african brother. hope the weekend is going nicely Sir

Perfect so far.I have a Foster beer keeping me company.

AlvinPlantinga:

Perfect so far.I have a Foster beer keeping me company.

Sounds like the perfect weekend. All you need now is some suya or peppersoup and you are in business

AlvinPlantinga:

There is no consensus on whether there is free will in heaven or not.All talk of such is pure speculation.majority of the articles i have read on the discussion support the idea that there is no free will in heaven.In heaven, God's direct presence removes any Moral free will.God is no longer "hidden".there is no epistemic distance.His existence is overwhelming to those in heaven.Free will on earth can be attributed to God's hiddenness, so to speak.God has not made his existence overwhelmingly obvious so as to erase creaturely Moral freedom.He has created humans at some sort of epistemic distance to allow people to make free decisions.

In the case of the fallen angels, at the beginning of creation, it is possible that God created these creatures with some sort of Epistemic distance that gave them free will to chose to rebel or not.

You do realize that those creatures (fallen angels) were in heaven with God. They actually knew God so this talk of "epistemic distance" is questionable. Now, if there is no free-will in heaven, why didn't this good God do that here on earth rather than permit the sorts of "natural evils" available on earth?

AlvinPlantinga:
My point was, the implication that Christian Philsosphers or Christians in general believe that "A perfectly Good God would want to remove all evil".I was not speaking about the truth or falsity of the statement.

What do Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent and good if this God doesn't want to remove all evil?

AlvinPlantinga:
Reading those works will enlighten you alot about the logical problem of evil.Don't you think its wise to be properly informed of arguments and counter arguments of a subject that you are participating in?

Sure it would be good to be well informed but the problem with these theological twists is that they're often empty so I would prefer to deal with your application of the idea in the materials you're referring to.

AlvinPlantinga:
I already have.in summary, God cannot actualise a world where Free willed beings commit no evil(partly due to Transworld depravity)and, as long as there is such an epistemic distance between Him and humans.i.e He retains the property of hiddenness.

So are you saying that it is logically impossible for God to create a world where free-willed beings commit no evil? Can you please tell us how it is logically impossible? And note that this tells us nothing about the evils of tsunamis, cancer, river blindness and malaria.
That what is available in heaven are simply mindless zombies praising God?

AlvinPlantinga:
Not interested.The problem with quoting scriptures, is, the argument will end up being about interpretations, context, bible exegesis.Which i have no clue on, and am 80% sure you that you are no Biblical scholar yourself( NOTE:Biblical scholarship is not reserved to theists only.Bart Erhman, a brilliant atheist Biblical Scholar comes to mind).

I'm not a Bible scholar but I don't think one needs to be a Bible scholar to understand what that passage commands otherwise, only Bible scholars would be qualified to read and talk about the Bible.
If you're not interested in reading about the sorts of commands the Christian God has given, then how do you know he is beneficent?

AlvinPlantinga:
yes.

Good.

Kay 17:
And from what did he create and design this gigantic super complex world?? From Nothing or Hinself??

In his mind. He thought, and it was manifested, no need for emotions and effort.
simply thought.

And if o believe that your mind, thats is made in the image of gods is nothing, you need to do deep breathing to rid your body of stress and neative thought to think straight

thehomer:

You do realize that those creatures (fallen angels) were in heaven with God. They actually knew God so this talk of "epistemic distance" is questionable.

Epistemic distance does not mean Physical distance.Epistemic is relating to or involving knowledge.Epistemic distance can be translated to mean Knowledgeable Distance.Therefore when i say the fallen angels could have been created at a certain epsitemic distance i do not mean that this entails any spacio- temporal sort of distance.Therefore these angels being in "heaven physically "together with God does not in anywhere suggest that there was no Epistemic distance between them and God.

Now, if there is no free-will in heaven, why didn't this good God do that here on earth rather than permit the sorts of "natural evils" available on earth?

Natural evil? or you meant to say moral evil?Why didn't God just create humans who did not possess free will?Or why didn't God just create earth to be another heaven?

What do Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent and good if this God doesn't want to remove all evil?

A God who is omnibenevolent and omniscient may have good reasons to allow some evil.It does not follow that since we do not know all the reasons for each instance of evil then god does not have sufficient good reasons as to why he fails to prevent some evil.just like a 3 month old baby does not know the reasons why he's receiving painful measles and small porks jabs, we humans have a limited amount of knowledge to fathom how an en evil act thats been allowed today, may result in Good consequences tomorrow, or 100 years from now.or 10,000 kms away.

Sure it would be good to be well informed but the problem with these theological twists is that they're often empty so I would prefer to deal with your application of the idea in the materials you're referring to.

These theological twists, are not empty.Some are, but the ones in question are profound philosophical problems, not only for theists, but to atheists as well.Since the problem of evil is not a problem for theists alone,it affects everyone.So everyone has to account for the problem of evil in his or her own worldview.

So are you saying that it is logically impossible for God to create a world where free-willed beings commit no evil? Can you please tell us how it is logically impossible? And note that this tells us nothing about the evils of tsunamis, cancer, river blindness and malaria.
That what is available in heaven are simply mindless zombies praising God?

I am not saying it is logicallly impossible.I am saying it is not feasible.That is why, i proposed reading about feasible and possible world terminology.

A thing can be possible, but not feasible.for example there is no logical contradiction in claiming that there is a plate of Suya rotating around the planet Mars.It is indeed absurd, a plate of Suya rotating around mars would not be breaking any laws of physics.But how feasible is it?We all know that it is highly unlikely that there is a plate of Suya rotating on mars.

When i say that a world where, human beings are free, and truly free to chose good over evil,i.e make moral decisions,then it is highly unlikely that out of say, 5 billion people,living a lifespan of 80 years,that no one will chose an act of evil, even once in his lifetime.

therefore it is not upto God to decide which world is "actualizable" as long as he creates free beings.He may want these 5 billion people living 80 years each to not chose even 1 instance of evil, in their lifetimes, but he can not guarantee that these will happen as long as these creatures have significant free moral choices to make everyday of their lives.

I'm not a Bible scholar but I don't think one needs to be a Bible scholar to understand what that passage commands otherwise, only Bible scholars would be qualified to read and talk about the Bible.

and you are right.but arguments about textual meaning of scriptures usually leads to biblical exegesis.It is inevitable.

If you're not interested in reading about the sorts of commands the Christian God has given, then how do you know he is beneficent?

because you make the assumption that someone needs to read the bible in order to know right or wrong?

. . .

NwaBiafra:

In his mind. He thought, and it was manifested, no need for emotions and effort.
simply thought.

And if o believe that your mind, thats is made in the image of gods is nothing, you need to do deep breathing to rid your body of stress and neative thought to think straight

I have always believed the mind was more like a mirror, the reflections of reality bounces off it and sometimes in a modified figure. That a mind in a void was ineffectual.

However, since we/creation are mere thoughts, then the mind which we are conceived from would be far more complex than we are, isn't it contrary to general experience and natural order, that a grand complexity gives rise to simplicity?? That water came before hydrogen?? That only from mountains that particles are got from??

Isn't it necessary for God (complex mind) to have a simpler cause?

AlvinPlantinga:

Epistemic distance does not mean Physical distance.Epistemic is relating to or involving knowledge.Epistemic distance can be translated to mean Knowledgeable Distance.Therefore when i say the fallen angels could have been created at a certain epsitemic distance i do not mean that this entails any spacio- temporal sort of distance.Therefore these angels being in "heaven physically "together with God does not in anywhere suggest that there was no Epistemic distance between them and God.



Natural evil? or you meant to say moral evil?Why didn't God just create humans who did not possess free will?Or why didn't God just create earth to be another heaven?



A God who is omnibenevolent and omniscient may have good reasons to allow some evil.It does not follow that since we do not know all the reasons for each instance of evil then god does not have sufficient good reasons as to why he fails to prevent some evil.just like a 3 month old baby does not know the reasons why he's receiving painful measles and small porks jabs, we humans have a limited amount of knowledge to fathom how an en evil act thats been allowed today, may result in Good consequences tomorrow, or 100 years from now.or 10,000 kms away.




These theological twists, are not empty.Some are, but the ones in question are profound philosophical problems, not only for theists, but to atheists as well.Since the problem of evil is not a problem for theists alone,it affects everyone.So everyone has to account for the problem of evil in his or her own worldview.



I am not saying it is logicallly impossible.I am saying it is not feasible.That is why, i proposed reading about feasible and possible world terminology.

A thing can be possible, but not feasible.for example there is no logical contradiction in claiming that there is a plate of Suya rotating around the planet Mars.It is indeed absurd, a plate of Suya rotating around mars would not be breaking any laws of physics.But how feasible is it?We all know that it is highly unlikely that there is a plate of Suya rotating on mars.

When i say that a world where, human beings are free, and truly free to chose good over evil,i.e make moral decisions,then it is highly unlikely that out of say, 5 billion people,living a lifespan of 80 years,that no one will chose an act of evil, even once in his lifetime.

therefore it is not upto God to decide which world is "actualizable" as long as he creates free beings.He may want these 5 billion people living 80 years each to not chose even 1 instance of evil, in their lifetimes, but he can not guarantee that these will happen as long as these creatures have significant free moral choices to make everyday of their lives.




and you are right.but arguments about textual meaning of scriptures usually leads to biblical exegesis.It is inevitable.


because you make the assumption that someone needs to read the bible in order to know right or wrong?

Before diving into the usefulness of Evil, God is must be Evil and imperfect, thus his creation reflects his nature.

AlvinPlantinga:

Epistemic distance does not mean Physical distance.Epistemic is relating to or involving knowledge.Epistemic distance can be translated to mean Knowledgeable Distance.Therefore when i say the fallen angels could have been created at a certain epsitemic distance i do not mean that this entails any spacio- temporal sort of distance.Therefore these angels being in "heaven physically "together with God does not in anywhere suggest that there was no Epistemic distance between them and God.

I know it doesn't mean physical distance. My point is that those fallen angels were in heaven and thus actually knew that this God existed so how can you go ahead and claim that there was epistemic distance? I can understand you proposing that in the case of humans and God's hiddenness (another problem on its own) but proposing it in the case of those angels in heaven is simply not plausible.

AlvinPlantinga:
Natural evil? or you meant to say moral evil?Why didn't God just create humans who did not possess free will?Or why didn't God just create earth to be another heaven?

No, I meant natural evil. Sure why didn't God do that? Given that according to you, he was going to take away their free-will anyway in heaven rather than sending them to hell to be tortured.

AlvinPlantinga:
A God who is omnibenevolent and omniscient may have good reasons to allow some evil.It does not follow that since we do not know all the reasons for each instance of evil then god does not have sufficient good reasons as to why he fails to prevent some evil.just like a 3 month old baby does not know the reasons why he's receiving painful measles and small porks jabs, we humans have a limited amount of knowledge to fathom how an en evil act thats been allowed today, may result in Good consequences tomorrow, or 100 years from now.or 10,000 kms away.

Based on what you're saying, you cannot claim that God is actually good. What you should be claiming is ignorance on whether or not he is good. Just as the 3 month old baby would. Saying that an evil act today may result in good consequences tomorrow is not really good enough because you're claiming that the best an omnipotent and beneficent God could do to achieve that aim is to e.g permit genocide multiple times.

AlvinPlantinga:
These theological twists, are not empty.Some are, but the ones in question are profound philosophical problems, not only for theists, but to atheists as well.Since the problem of evil is not a problem for theists alone,it affects everyone.So everyone has to account for the problem of evil in his or her own worldview.

Actually, the problem of evil is only a problem for a certain conception of a God. I would like to see why you think it is a problem for atheists.

AlvinPlantinga:
I am not saying it is logicallly impossible.I am saying it is not feasible.That is why, i proposed reading about feasible and possible world terminology.

If you can apply it concisely here, I don't think I would need to read some other tome on it.

AlvinPlantinga:
A thing can be possible, but not feasible.for example there is no logical contradiction in claiming that there is a plate of Suya rotating around the planet Mars.It is indeed absurd, a plate of Suya rotating around mars would not be breaking any laws of physics.But how feasible is it?We all know that it is highly unlikely that there is a plate of Suya rotating on mars.

Okay so we're talking about probabilities here. Keep in mind that we're dealing with an omnipotent God who is only limited by logical contradictions so whether or not something is feasible or unlikely wouldn't limit him now would it? After all, Christians claim he raised Jesus from the dead. How feasible is that?

AlvinPlantinga:
When i say that a world where, human beings are free, and truly free to chose good over evil,i.e make moral decisions,then it is highly unlikely that out of say, 5 billion people,living a lifespan of 80 years,that no one will chose an act of evil, even once in his lifetime.

therefore it is not upto God to decide which world is "actualizable" as long as he creates free beings.He may want these 5 billion people living 80 years each to not chose even 1 instance of evil, in their lifetimes, but he can not guarantee that these will happen as long as these creatures have significant free moral choices to make everyday of their lives.

At the very least, would you agree that God should put in more effort than he has done so far rather than hiding himself so well. Also, you're ignoring evils such as tsunamis, cancer, river blindness and malaria? Couldn't God have prevented those from occurring?

AlvinPlantinga:
and you are right.but arguments about textual meaning of scriptures usually leads to biblical exegesis.It is inevitable.

How are you able to make any conclusion on what the Bible says on anything? I'm assuming that you read it and understand it in some way. Are you willing to examine your own parsing of the Bible? My point is that if you're talking about the Christian God, there is simply no way that reading the Bible wouldn't be involved.

AlvinPlantinga:
because you make the assumption that someone needs to read the bible in order to know right or wrong?

What I asked was how you know your God is beneficent. I'm saying that from the Bible, he isn't but how do you know that he is? What is the basis of such a claim?

@master_1
I agree with you. Tho, God was never 'alive' anyway.
One piece of advice, if you don't mind, most religions have separate notion of God. Falling into a trap of giving characters to God the religion don't agree with is a common mistake. Just read and research more. Next time, be sure to clearly state you are referring to the general notion of God or else, religionists will bring their usual obfuscating argument.

If you want to see God, you must begin by desiring to see Him. When you seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. No one needs to teach you to know God. He is more willing to bring you into His fellowship and hence reveal Himself to you, than you're willing to see Him.

staggerman: If you want to see God, you must begin by desiring to see Him. When you seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. No one needs to teach you to know God. He is more willing to bring you into His fellowship and hence reveal Himself to you, than you're willing to see Him.

This is a nice way to set yourself up for a cognitive bias.

@ alvinplatinga

AlvinPlantinga:


A God who is omnibenevolent and omniscient may have good reasons to allow some evil.It does not follow that since we do not know all the reasons for each instance of evil then god does not have sufficient good reasons as to why he fails to prevent some evil.just like a 3 month old baby does not know the reasons why he's receiving painful measles and small porks jabs, we humans have a limited amount of knowledge to fathom how an en evil act thats been allowed today, may result in Good consequences tomorrow, or 100 years from now.or 10,000 kms away.

while i agree with some of your argument, this particular case is weak and full of several flaws.
1. if the parents of the baby had been omniscient and omnipotent, they would have prevented the disease that would require the baby receiving painful injections in the first place. even if somehow the baby needed injection, i as a father would prefer the child to get well if possible without injection, that is if I'm omnipotent. so are you telling me the omnibenevolent God (all-Good and all-Loving God) is more wicked than earthly parents.
2. a child can grow up to later understand the reason for the pain of injection as a child, but i wonder how humans will grow up to understand the motive behind God allowing millions of innocents suffering poverty, war crimes, slavery, diseases, and even hell fire in the hereafter. i know most of evil is caused by man against man. but an omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent God could easily prevent it or put an end to it. I wonder if any motive for allowing this will make sense to the victim at any time later maybe 100 years later or 100.000km away.
3. knowing or not knowing the reason does not make evil less painful to the victim. if God is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent as religions claim, no reason will be justified to allow human suffering both now and in the hereafter as religions claim.
therefore, the harsh reality that evil exists, both moral and natural, casts a question mark on the existence of an All-Good, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God

Just as a side note: has anybody ever wondered why religions mandate its adherents to believe and declare that God is good e.g. Christians are supposed to say "God is good all the time" and muslims are supposed to chant "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, Benevolent" has anybody ever wondered why that is necessary

^ Yes, Alvinplant has made some very good arguments, but I agree with you and thehomer that the supposed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence do destroy Alvin's suppositions on necessary "evil".

Hello guys.I had a long weekend.A good one i might add.Was at work the whole day yesterday.thehomer,cyrex , deepsight and everyone else thanks for the stimulating debate.I must apologise for the delayed reply.My post is going to be very long today,hopefully to try and reply to all the posts all at once.
thehomer i would suggest we stick to the problem of evil in these thread.the Moral Problem of evil to be specific.All other issues we can talk about in another thread.This is just to make the thread more specific and less drawn out into a myriad of topics.I hope thats fine with you?

The problem Of evil

I will start today with, first making it clear that the problem of evil is an atheistic argument.i.e it is the Atheist who is proposing that:-
a)The Problem of evil shows that God does not exist
b)God cannot be tri-omni
Therefore, in this case the Atheist or the proponent of the argument has the burden of proof to show why a) and b) is true.The christian proposes the following defenses
a) God could have good reasons for allowing certain evil acts.
b) It is not upto God to actualize a world where free willed beings commit no evil.
the above reasons are what i have proposed in these thread.

God Could have good Reasons For Allowing certain evil Acts

I proposed that an omniscient God could have good reasons to allow certain acts of evil.The fact that we do NOT see these reasons, does not mean that God does not have one.The fact that we are NOT satisfied with the above position,again, does not mean that THEREFORE God does not have a good reason for allowing a certain acts of evil.
I will remind readers of the thread that the BURDEN of proof is upto to the Atheist to show that God did not have a good reason for allowing a particular act of evil.Its the atheist who is proposing a logical contradiction between evil and a tri-omni God.
thehomers response

Based on what you're saying, you cannot claim that God is actually good. What you should be claiming is ignorance on whether or not he is good. Just as the 3 month old baby would. Saying that an evil act today may result in good consequences tomorrow is not really good enough because you're claiming that the best an omnipotent and beneficent God could do to achieve that aim is to e.g permit genocide multiple times..

You are the one who is proposing that there is a logical contradiction between evil and a tri-omni God.Being NOT GOOD ENOUGH is really not a counter argument.I was not using mystery to answer the problem of evil.My position was that it is not unreasonable to expect, given the nature of our situation (a transcendent God and human beings with cognitive limitations in time and space), that we would be unable to perceive God’s sufficient reasons for allowing evil. The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil therefore is in no position to assess the probability of a good God allowing the evil he sees in the world.

Cyrexx Response

1. if the parents of the baby had been omniscient and omnipotent, they would have prevented the disease that would require the baby receiving painful injections in the first place. even if somehow the baby needed injection, i as a father would prefer the child to get well if possible without injection, that is if I'm omnipotent. so are you telling me the omnibenevolent God (all-Good and all-Loving God) is more wicked than earthly parents.

Cyrexx, you have simply asserted the Problem Of Evil again.You are making two hidden assumptions which remain unproven so far, that , by virtue of God being omnipotent he can create any world he desires (see below on the free will defense and Sould building theodicy) and secondly, that God does not have good reasons to allow certain acts of evil.Which i have addressed in this response.The point still remains that even a loving father would permit some suffering or pain in the course of his child's life because of a morally sufficient overriding reason.

And as long as that’s even possible, the atheist has failed to shoulder the burden of proof - to show that this christian defense is false.

I will also add, that Christians do not believe that God's sole purpose for mankind on earth is to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.Christians believe that God's primary purpose for human beings on earth is to come into a personal relationship with Him.What is normally referred to as Soul Building.

In conclusion

The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil has to show that God does not have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil.Not simply possibly true, but necessarily TRUE.The Atheist cannot simply express his dissatisfaction with the argument, or claim the argument is weak.So far with my discourse with thehomer and cyrexx, both , in my opinion have failed to provide such reasons.Understandably, they or none of us, is in a position to claim greater knowledge than an omniscient being.

Free Will Defense and The Problem Of Evil

In my last response, i gave the Free Will defense as articulated by its proponent Alvin Plantinga(the Christian Philosopher).In summary, in every possible world that God creates with significantly free willed beings, evil is bound to exist.

It is not upto God to actualize a world where Free willed beings commit no evil.God cannot make morally free beings to chose good.Otherwise they are really not free at all.

I have not seen any counter argument for this.thehommer asserted again that since God is omnipotent,he should be able to actualise a world where there is no evil acts commited by free willed beings.We need some argument behind this premise/claim.While it is true that there is no Logical contradiction in a POSSIBLE world where there are free willed human beings who commit no evil, the logical contradiction comes with the claim that God can make free willed beings make a particular choice.This is what thehommer is proposing.That God should somehow make Free willed beings make only one choice, everytime.

It is logically impossible to make a person freely do something, and I think that thehommer has not grasped the difference between a possible world and a feasible world. There are possible worlds, logically, where everyone always chooses to do the right thing. But those worlds may not be feasible for God because if God created free human beings in them, in the circumstances of eg the way our world is, the agents/humans might choose differently - might make wrong moral choices. Hence its logically impossible to make someone freely choose to do something.Not every logically possible world is actualizable by God - only feasible worlds. And therefore this is no qualification claim that God's omnipotence is not enough.

If someone would want to claim that omnipotence entails God doing the logically impossible, then alas! there is no problem of evil! For a Christian/theist can also say that God has brought it about that he exists and evil exists.

I would repeat that it is not upto God to actualize a world where free willed beings commit no evil.It is totally upto humans to actualize such a world.

The Best thing God can do is to create opportunities for people to have choice between moral evil and moral good.He can encourage them to make good choices,but ultimately the decision is upto humans.

I am sorry again for the long response, but i do appreciate a good intellectual debate.and thanks to thehommer for the exchange.Looking forward to hearing from you.

AlvinPlantinga:

It is not upto God to actualize a world where Free willed beings commit no evil.God cannot make morally free beings to chose good.Otherwise they are really not free at all.


If someone would want to claim that omnipotence entails God doing the logically impossible, then alas! there is no problem of evil! For a Christian/theist can also say that God has brought it about that he exists and evil exists.

I would repeat that it is not up to God to actualize a world where free willed beings commit no evil.It is totally up to humans to actualize such a world.

The Best thing God can do is to create opportunities for people to have choice between moral evil and moral good.He can encourage them to make good choices,but ultimately the decision is upto humans.

hmmm, a very interesting post. i have to read over and over again to sink everything inside.
thanx a lot, alvinplatinga, i must say, you have cleared some of my doubts about the 3 omni God must possess. i wish there are more minds like you on nairaland

but you are still speaking from a position of an observant of evil in this world.
will you say the same thing if you had been a victim of evil.

millions of people suffer form the consequences of evil everyday- starvation, extreme poverty, incurable diseases, pain (both physical and mental), war crimes, genocides, earthquakes, tsunami, rape, injusice.. just to name a few of man's woes. you said God allowed humans with free will to bring about evil against fellow mankind in the world; or even satan with free will to bring about evil. hmmm. honestly its hard to believe, especially for the victim standpoint.
this has not totally disproved a proposition that God maybe lacked one of these omni-, if evil still exists.
1. either He is not omnipotent - some things (e.g. human or Satan's free will actions) are just beyond His control
2. or maybe He is not omniscient - He does not know beforehand (or He choose not know beforehand) the outcome of the actions of human or satan's free will and its resultant evil effect which is against His perfect will as an All-Good God.
3. or lastly maybe He is not omnibenevolent: maybe He is not All-good and the Most Merciful and Beneficient like religions portray Him. in that case, He could be aware of evil and decided He wont do anything about it. maybe He doesn't care what we humans call evil or what humans suffer in the consequence of evil. and we dare not challege what He allows in His Universe.

I'm still wondering why why religions mandate its adherents to believe and declare that God is good e.g. Christians are supposed to say "God is good all the time" and muslims are supposed to chant "In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, Benevolent". why do we need to convince ourselves that God is good.

@ Alvin Plantinga -

Very well articulated. Quite excellently put.

However I will say as follows -

1. Have you considered the possibility that God is neither good nor evil, but simply IS.

2. Have you considered the possibility that God encompasses the totality of all self-existent principles - and that that encompasses the principles of light as well as darkness

Discssion: https://www.nairaland.com/402063/meta-ethics-nature-origins-good-evil

3. I predict that thehomer (not i) will still raise the issue of natural disasters, cancer, malaria, etc. Although in the words of Harold Klemp, these reverses are required for the development of teh soul.

AlvinPlantinga: Hello guys.I had a long weekend.A good one i might add.Was at work the whole day yesterday.thehomer,cyrex , deepsight and everyone else thanks for the stimulating debate.I must apologise for the delayed reply.My post is going to be very long today,hopefully to try and reply to all the posts all at once.
thehomer i would suggest we stick to the problem of evil in these thread.the Moral Problem of evil to be specific.All other issues we can talk about in another thread.This is just to make the thread more specific and less drawn out into a myriad of topics.I hope thats fine with you?

You wish to stick to the problem of evil with respect to the Christian God, that is fine but the moral problem of evil is a subset of the problem of evil so why remove that from the discussion?

AlvinPlantinga:
The problem Of evil

I will start today with, first making it clear that the problem of evil is an atheistic argument.i.e it is the Atheist who is proposing that:-
a)The Problem of evil shows that God does not exist
b)God cannot be tri-omni
Therefore, in this case the Atheist or the proponent of the argument has the burden of proof to show why a) and b) is true.The christian proposes the following defenses
a) God could have good reasons for allowing certain evil acts.
b) It is not upto God to actualize a world where free willed beings commit no evil.
the above reasons are what i have proposed in these thread.

I'll address your defenses below.

AlvinPlantinga:
God Could have good Reasons For Allowing certain evil Acts

I proposed that an omniscient God could have good reasons to allow certain acts of evil.The fact that we do NOT see these reasons, does not mean that God does not have one.The fact that we are NOT satisfied with the above position,again, does not mean that THEREFORE God does not have a good reason for allowing a certain acts of evil.
I will remind readers of the thread that the BURDEN of proof is upto to the Atheist to show that God did not have a good reason for allowing a particular act of evil.Its the atheist who is proposing a logical contradiction between evil and a tri-omni God.

thehomers response

You are the one who is proposing that there is a logical contradiction between evil and a tri-omni God.Being NOT GOOD ENOUGH is really not a counter argument.I was not using mystery to answer the problem of evil.My position was that it is not unreasonable to expect, given the nature of our situation (a transcendent God and human beings with cognitive limitations in time and space), that we would be unable to perceive God’s sufficient reasons for allowing evil. The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil therefore is in no position to assess the probability of a good God allowing the evil he sees in the world.

If you do not know that God has a good reason, then how can you say he is benevolent? All I'm asking for here is that you accept ignorance on whether or not he is beneficent. If you're not going to accept ignorance on his omnibenevolence, then you need to tell us why you still think he is beneficent with the existence of evil in the world.

Actually, if he is not good enough, it would imply that he could be better and if he could be better, then then why would he be considered omnibenevolent?

We have agreed that the God under discussion is the Christian God yet you do not wish to use the Bible to demonstrate his goodness. As you've said, maybe I'll open another thread on his atrocities in the Bible or resurrect a previous thread on the issue.

AlvinPlantinga:
Cyrexx Response



Cyrexx, you have simply asserted the Problem Of Evil again.You are making two hidden assumptions which remain unproven so far, that , by virtue of God being omnipotent he can create any world he desires (see below on the free will defense and Sould building theodicy) and secondly, that God does not have good reasons to allow certain acts of evil.Which i have addressed in this response.The point still remains that even a loving father would permit some suffering or pain in the course of his child's life because of a morally sufficient overriding reason.

And as long as that’s even possible, the atheist has failed to shoulder the burden of proof - to show that this christian defense is false.

You're missing his point which is that if the parent were omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent towards the child, they wouldn't even need suffering and pain happening to the child in the first place.

AlvinPlantinga:
I will also add, that Christians do not believe that God's sole purpose for mankind on earth is to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.Christians believe that God's primary purpose for human beings on earth is to come into a personal relationship with Him.What is normally referred to as Soul Building.

Based on this, what idea of omnibenevolence are you using? If God doesn't care about reducing human pain, then would you really consider him as being benevolent?

AlvinPlantinga:
In conclusion

The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil has to show that God does not have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil.Not simply possibly true, but necessarily TRUE.The Atheist cannot simply express his dissatisfaction with the argument, or claim the argument is weak.So far with my discourse with thehomer and cyrexx, both , in my opinion have failed to provide such reasons.Understandably, they or none of us, is in a position to claim greater knowledge than an omniscient being.

Again, please note my point which is basically asking you to suspend judgement on God's goodness.

AlvinPlantinga:
Free Will Defense and The Problem Of Evil

In my last response, i gave the Free Will defense as articulated by its proponent Alvin Plantinga(the Christian Philosopher).In summary, in every possible world that God creates with significantly free willed beings, evil is bound to exist.

It is not upto God to actualize a world where Free willed beings commit no evil.God cannot make morally free beings to chose good.Otherwise they are really not free at all.

I have not seen any counter argument for this.thehommer asserted again that since God is omnipotent,he should be able to actualise a world where there is no evil acts commited by free willed beings.We need some argument behind this premise/claim.While it is true that there is no Logical contradiction in a POSSIBLE world where there are free willed human beings who commit no evil, the logical contradiction comes with the claim that God can make free willed beings make a particular choice.This is what thehommer is proposing.That God should somehow make Free willed beings make only one choice, everytime.

That is because I haven't yet made an argument.
If Christianity were true, it wouldn't be a mere assertion. We're talking about a God that performed all those miracles in the Bible but balks at creating a world where people only make the right decision.
Since you've brought up this so-called free-will defense, I'll need to know what idea of free-will you're using because it has various conceptions. e.g there is the idea that people actually will make the same decision given their previous history and another that due to quantum indeterminacy, some may just make a random decision from time to time.
Then there is also the question of whether the sort of free-will being proposed is worth having given the sort of evil that may result.

AlvinPlantinga:
It is logically impossible to make a person freely do something, and I think that thehommer has not grasped the difference between a possible world and a feasible world. There are possible worlds, logically, where everyone always chooses to do the right thing. But those worlds may not be feasible for God because if God created free human beings in them, in the circumstances of eg the way our world is, the agents/humans might choose differently - might make wrong moral choices. Hence its logically impossible to make someone freely choose to do something.Not every logically possible world is actualizable by God - only feasible worlds. And therefore this is no qualification claim that God's omnipotence is not enough.

I think you would first need to tell us the idea of free-will you're talking about in order to avoid any confusion as the discussion progresses.
Actually, I do understand the difference between possible worlds and feasible worlds. My point is that if God could create a world where he is claimed to have such power that he performs the outrageous miracles that we see, has such foreknowledge of people and events, why does he suddenly not have the power to create a world where people simply make the right choices? Take yourself for instance. Since you have freewill, why don't you go out and brutally murder the next 20 people you see? Is it possible for you acting freely to just get up and kill the next 20 people you see? This is why I think if you're going to attempt such a defense, you would first need to give us an idea of the freewill you're talking about.

AlvinPlantinga:
If someone would want to claim that omnipotence entails God doing the logically impossible, then alas! there is no problem of evil! For a Christian/theist can also say that God has brought it about that he exists and evil exists.

I would repeat that it is not upto God to actualize a world where free willed beings commit no evil.It is totally upto humans to actualize such a world.

The Best thing God can do is to create opportunities for people to have choice between moral evil and moral good.He can encourage them to make good choices,but ultimately the decision is upto humans.

This sounds to me like God shirking his responsibilities. He created humans. He has declared them sinful from birth yet you claim that he has also granted them freewill to make the right choices. How is this benevolent? This sounds to me like making an error prone computer consistently produce accurate results.

AlvinPlantinga:
I am sorry again for the long response, but i do appreciate a good intellectual debate.and thanks to thehommer for the exchange.Looking forward to hearing from you.

I don't really have a problem with a long response as long as it is substantive but for me to be able to respond to your so called "freewill defense", I'll need to know what idea of freewill you're using.

Cyrexx and Deepsight.I will try and offer a more comprehensive response later in the evening.Having a very busy day at the office today.

Deepsight quite thought provoking:-

You know, maybe God is neither Good nor evil.Maybe he's Ammoral.How dow we know that God is good?This is quite different from the Problem Of evil.And at this juncture the short answer i woud give for now is that the existence of objective Morals is a strong pointer that God is not ammoral.

I will expound later after work.

@ Alvinplant -

Particularly from this post onwards -

https://www.nairaland.com/402063/meta-ethics-nature-origins-good-evil/2#5590319

Please read and revert in light of my question (2) above.

Thanks.

AlvinPlantinga: Cyrexx and Deepsight.I will try and offer a more comprehensive response later in the evening.Having a very busy day at the office today.

Deepsight quite thought provoking:-

You know, maybe God is neither Good nor evil.Maybe he's Ammoral.How dow we know that God is good?This is quite different from the Problem Of evil.And at this juncture the short answer i woud give for now is that the existence of objective Morals is a strong pointer that God is not ammoral.

I will expound later after work.

Much like in science class, there are forces which govern this world, positive energy and negative energy. And remember like attracts like. Some call the positive good and others call the negative bad, but thats all subjective, looking at it from an objective view point, there is no way in this universe, that you can ever have negative without positive, and vice versa, Some call THAT FORCE GOD, That is why God is the most merciful GOD because when people have been doing negative at a point in their life and they turn and tap into that positive life force, they feel as though GOD is good. And while others are doing negative they attract other negativity's into their life and then the questions the IDEA of a GOD of whatever form they have in their mind to not exist because of the negative or evil they see and encounter in the world.
So is GOD DEAD? thats a backwards statement, because any Holy book or scripture from every culture in this world has stated that "GOD" is the Beginning and the end, To me that means never ending, never began, never will die, because it was never born.

^^^

Evil is an imperfection, its the disharmony in natural order, except you are insisting that there are overarching guiding laws which bind God as well, God is deemed perfect, thus his nature ought to reflect in his creation.

Otherwise the premise that God created all OR that he exists becomes wrong. If God is good/perfect, then there will be no evil. Simple.

Hello Guys,

I have been busy so had very little time to come on nairaland.Last time i offered two defenses to show that the existence of Evil does not entail any Logical contradiction with a Tri-Omni God.

1.God could have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil.

I proposed that God could have good reasons to allow evil, even though we may not see these reasons,it does not follow that therefore he does not have good reasons.

thehommer then asked me to:-

If you do not know that God has a good reason, then how can you say he is benevolent?Actually, if he is not good enough, it would imply that he could be better and if he could be better, then then why would he be considered omnibenevolent?

We have agreed that the God under discussion is the Christian God yet you do not wish to use the Bible to demonstrate his goodness. As you've said, maybe I'll open another thread on his atrocities in the Bible or resurrect a previous thread on the issue

First, this is not my position.I am not saying that i do not know whether God has good reasons or not.I am saying that the fact that we do not see these good reasons all the time, sometimes, it does not follow that therefore God does not have good reasons to allow evil.And i will just repeat my earlier quote,My position was that it is not unreasonable to expect, given the nature of our situation (a transcendent God and human beings with cognitive limitations in time and space), that we would be unable to perceive God’s sufficient reasons for allowing evil. The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil therefore is in no position to assess the probability of a good God allowing the evil he sees in the world.
.

Secondly, thehommer seems to have forgotten that the Problem Of Evil assumes that the God we are talking about is neccesarily good/omnibenevolent.As with all arguments in logic and philosophy, we use Conditional Clauses.There is usually an antecedent clause followed by a consequent. We use IF statements to make an argument.eg,If Mary arrives home early, then she will be able to cook dinner for everyone.
In our case, the atheist is saying:-

If an Omnipotent,Omniscient,Omnibenevolent being exists, and Evil exists,then there is a logical contradiction.For there to be a problem of evil,then you must first grant or assume that God is tri-omni, then you proceed to make your case on why evil and a tri-omni God existing is a logical contradiction.

What we should always keep reminding ourselves is that the Problem of Evil is an atheistic argument.So if you want to abandon one of the premises eg God's Goodness, then you do not have a problem of evil.In short, we are simply asking ourselves, if such a being existed,a being who is all-loving and allknowing, would it follow that he would not have good reasons for allowing a particular act of evil?and how would we be able to assess such a probability given our finite nature in time,comprehension and space?

Thirdly, Asking how then do we know God is good is totally out of the discussion at hand.This is a question about Moral Epistemelogy and Ontology.Which is a different argument from the Problem of Evil.But to answer the question, then i would refer thehommer to the Moral Argument and even Anselm's Ontological argument on Neccesary Propoerties of an Existent being..Which all can be discussed at a different thread.

You're missing his point which is that if the parent were omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent towards the child, they wouldn't even need suffering and pain happening to the child in the first place.Based on this, what idea of omnibenevolence are you using? If God doesn't care about reducing human pain, then would you really consider him as being benevolent?

The hidden claim/assumption here being that Omnibenevolence entails minimising pain and maximising pleasure.We will need to see more justification for this.
As i have stated, Christians do not believe that God's primary purpose for mankind is to create a comfortable living environment for us here on earth.The goal Of life on earth in a christian worldview is not happiness.Rather the knowledge of God, bringing Human beings into a personal relationship with him and soul building.Certain good virtues such as courage,endurance, compassion etc are only possible in a naturalistic physical world which has pain and suffering.(hence Hick's Soul building theodicy).

Perhaps only in such a world, would the maximum amount of people come into a personal relationship with God.

But above all, my Point still remains, that as long as it is even possible that God could have Morally Sufficient reasons to allow evil,then the there is no logical contradictoon between the existence of God and evil.

Part 2 to be continued......

On the Free Will Defense

The second defense i gave was the Free Will Defense.I stated that as long as humans are Significantly Moral Free, then moral evil would probably exist.I stated that there are certain worlds that are feasible and others which are not feasible to God.It is not feasible for God to actualise a world without evil yet with significantly morally free creatures.I proceeded to say that this does not show that God is not omnipotence, rather that it is not upto God to actualise such worlds,rather it is upto humans.

So far thehommer has failed to raise any counter argument.And proceeded to assert that since God did miracles, then he should be able to make beings with Free will but only make the right decision.On which i responded earlier, it is indeed a logical contradiction for God to make someone only make one choice and still claim that the person is free.As long as the person could not have chosen otherwise,then the person has no Free Will.

thehommer then asked me how come if i have free will i do not go out and murder 20 people ?Is it possible that out of my own Free will i will wake up and kill 20 poeple? Certainly! it is possible.But the real question is,how feasible is it?This is where i suspect that thehommer has not grasped Possible World terminologies.He may be using Feasibilty and Possibilty interchangeably.

As the cliche says, there are endless possibilities.it is possible that thehommer will become US president tomorrow, it is possible that Elvis presley will come back to life today.there is actually no logical contradiction in Elvis coming back to life.If Elvis was both dead and alive, then that would be a logical contradiction.

But the question is, how feasible is it that Elvis will resurrect tomorrow?How feasible is it that his decomposed body/cells will start coalsceing back together, his brain cells will start firing neurons again?Very unlikely.Infact we can say with absolute confidence that the feasibily of such an event happening tomorrow, is zero.

So is the feasibility of thehommer becoming US president tomorrow.Me waking up killing 20 people, possible?yes.Feasible, highly unlikely.

thehommer has asked which version of Free Will i am using. I would like to know what is wrong with the version of Free will i am using.


In Conclusion, with my exchanges with thehommer, he has failed to offer good counter arguments for the defenses i have given.He is not able to show that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and secondly,he has put up no counter argument for the free will defense.But simply asserted that since God is Omnipotent he should "Force" people to always chose right,but at the same time preserve their freedom.

If these two defenses stand, then the Problem Of Evil has failed to show that God does not exist, or the concept of a tri-omni God is logically contradictory with the existence of evil.

Deep Sight: @ Alvinplant -

Particularly from this post onwards -

https://www.nairaland.com/402063/meta-ethics-nature-origins-good-evil/2#5590319

Please read and revert in light of my question (2) above.

Thanks.

Some brilliant minds on that thread.Still digesting it.will offer an input if i can!

AlvinPlantinga: Hello Guys,

I have been busy so had very little time to come on nairaland.Last time i offered two defenses to show that the existence of Evil does not entail any Logical contradiction with a Tri-Omni God.

1.God could have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil.

I proposed that God could have good reasons to allow evil, even though we may not see these reasons,it does not follow that therefore he does not have good reasons.

thehommer then asked me to:-


First, this is not my position.I am not saying that i do not know whether God has good reasons or not.I am saying that the fact that we do not see these good reasons all the time, sometimes, it does not follow that therefore God does not have good reasons to allow evil.And i will just repeat my earlier quote,My position was that it is not unreasonable to expect, given the nature of our situation (a transcendent God and human beings with cognitive limitations in time and space), that we would be unable to perceive God’s sufficient reasons for allowing evil. The atheist or the proponent of the problem of evil therefore is in no position to assess the probability of a good God allowing the evil he sees in the world.
.

I did not say it was your position, I'm simply pointing out that if you do not know the reasons for the evil, then you cannot say he is good. If you claim ignorance of the reasons for the evil we see, then is it not possible that the God you're talking about is actually evil and that there actually are no reasons for the evil we see?

AlvinPlantinga:
Secondly, thehommer seems to have forgotten that the Problem Of Evil assumes that the God we are talking about is neccesarily good/omnibenevolent.As with all arguments in logic and philosophy, we use Conditional Clauses.There is usually an antecedent clause followed by a consequent. We use IF statements to make an argument.eg,If Mary arrives home early, then she will be able to cook dinner for everyone.
In our case, the atheist is saying:-

If an Omnipotent,Omniscient,Omnibenevolent being exists, and Evil exists,then there is a logical contradiction.For there to be a problem of evil,then you must first grant or assume that God is tri-omni, then you proceed to make your case on why evil and a tri-omni God existing is a logical contradiction.

I haven't forgotten that but you seem to have forgotten that the point of the argument is to show that such a God actually doesn't exist. So, if the argument is sound, such a God actually doesn't exist. So if you're actually accepting that the argument is sound, the conclusion that follows is that such a God doesn't exist.

AlvinPlantinga:
What we should always keep reminding ourselves is that the Problem of Evil is an atheistic argument.So if you want to abandon one of the premises eg God's Goodness, then you do not have a problem of evil.In short, we are simply asking ourselves, if such a being existed,a being who is all-loving and allknowing, would it follow that he would not have good reasons for allowing a particular act of evil?and how would we be able to assess such a probability given our finite nature in time,comprehension and space?

What you also should keep in mind is that I am offering you a way out of the argument which is that the God you're talking about is amoral. And understand that the point of the argument is to show that such a God doesn't exist.

AlvinPlantinga:
Thirdly, Asking how then do we know God is good is totally out of the discussion at hand.This is a question about Moral Epistemelogy and Ontology.Which is a different argument from the Problem of Evil.But to answer the question, then i would refer thehommer to the Moral Argument and even Anselm's Ontological argument on Neccesary Propoerties of an Existent being..Which all can be discussed at a different thread.

No it isn't totally out of the discussion at hand because we still have to determine whether or not the God you're talking about is actually good not just defined as being good otherwise, one could easily end up destroying the meanings of words. You may wish to do that by limiting the discussion to abstracts rather than actually looking at what the Bible says the God did but I'm still asking you why you want to do that.

AlvinPlantinga:
The hidden claim/assumption here being that Omnibenevolence entails minimising pain and maximising pleasure.We will need to see more justification for this.
As i have stated, Christians do not believe that God's primary purpose for mankind is to create a comfortable living environment for us here on earth.The goal Of life on earth in a christian worldview is not happiness.Rather the knowledge of God, bringing Human beings into a personal relationship with him and soul building.Certain good virtues such as courage,endurance, compassion etc are only possible in a naturalistic physical world which has pain and suffering.(hence Hick's Soul building theodicy).

You see, you're vacillating between the Gods under discussion. Since we've been talking about the Christian God, I don't see how you can separate that God from the Bible.
Also, it looks as though you want to redefine what it means to be omnibenevolent. Claiming that minimizing pain plays no part in deciding whether or not a person is benevolent actually destroys the meaning of pain or benevolence. Can you consider someone who is indifferent to your pain as being benevolent towards you?

AlvinPlantinga:
Perhaps only in such a world, would the maximum amount of people come into a personal relationship with God.

But above all, my Point still remains, that as long as it is even possible that God could have Morally Sufficient reasons to allow evil,then the there is no logical contradictoon between the existence of God and evil.

Part 2 to be continued......

No, there is another world where more people can come to know God and that is Heaven.
Again, if you cannot show that there is a morally sufficient reason why God allows diseases like childhood cancers, then the best you're left with is agnosticism on whether or not the God is good or an amoral God.

AlvinPlantinga: On the Free Will Defense

The second defense i gave was the Free Will Defense.I stated that as long as humans are Significantly Moral Free, then moral evil would probably exist.I stated that there are certain worlds that are feasible and others which are not feasible to God.It is not feasible for God to actualise a world without evil yet with significantly morally free creatures.I proceeded to say that this does not show that God is not omnipotence, rather that it is not upto God to actualise such worlds,rather it is upto humans.

You're smuggling in words e.g significantly morally free.

AlvinPlantinga:
So far thehommer has failed to raise any counter argument.And proceeded to assert that since God did miracles, then he should be able to make beings with Free will but only make the right decision.On which i responded earlier, it is indeed a logical contradiction for God to make someone only make one choice and still claim that the person is free.As long as the person could not have chosen otherwise,then the person has no Free Will.

Well yes. Miracles are a contradiction to how things normally are. Basically, what I'm saying is that based on a certain conception of free will, the actions of a person depend on the environment if God could have made a perfect environment, then the people would act perfectly with free will. And I also told you that I hadn't raised a counter argument because I do not know the idea or free will you're using. In these two paragraphs, you've referred to significant moral freedom and here, you're referring to free will. A brief look at the Wikipedia entry demonstrates this.

AlvinPlantinga:
thehommer then asked me how come if i have free will i do not go out and murder 20 people ?Is it possible that out of my own Free will i will wake up and kill 20 poeple? Certainly! it is possible.But the real question is,how feasible is it?This is where i suspect that thehommer has not grasped Possible World terminologies.He may be using Feasibilty and Possibilty interchangeably.

Again, you're missing my point. My point is that I need to know the idea of free will you're referring to because under certain conceptions, it is possible and under others, it isn't.

AlvinPlantinga:
As the cliche says, there are endless possibilities.it is possible that thehommer will become US president tomorrow, it is possible that Elvis presley will come back to life today.there is actually no logical contradiction in Elvis coming back to life.If Elvis was both dead and alive, then that would be a logical contradiction.

But the question is, how feasible is it that Elvis will resurrect tomorrow?How feasible is it that his decomposed body/cells will start coalsceing back together, his brain cells will start firing neurons again?Very unlikely.Infact we can say with absolute confidence that the feasibily of such an event happening tomorrow, is zero.

So is the feasibility of thehommer becoming US president tomorrow.Me waking up killing 20 people, possible?yes.Feasible, highly unlikely.

This is totally off point. And the cliche that there are endless possibilities is simply that; a cliche because in this universe, there aren't endless possibilities.

AlvinPlantinga:
thehommer has asked which version of Free Will i am using. I would like to know what is wrong with the version of Free will i am using.

I'm saying that I do not know the version you're using so I would need you to actually state it clearly for me to form a more appropriate argument.

AlvinPlantinga:
In Conclusion, with my exchanges with thehommer, he has failed to offer good counter arguments for the defenses i have given.He is not able to show that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and secondly,he has put up no counter argument for the free will defense.But simply asserted that since God is Omnipotent he should "Force" people to always chose right,but at the same time preserve their freedom.

If these two defenses stand, then the Problem Of Evil has failed to show that God does not exist, or the concept of a tri-omni God is logically contradictory with the existence of evil.

So far, you have failed to

1. tell us the idea or free will you're using,
2. show that God actually does have morally sufficient reasons for the evil we see,
3. show how what you've said applies to natural evil e.g diseases,

Finally, you don't seem to actually respond to what I say instead, you seem to just write as though you're writing from a book rather than having a discussion with someone. It looks as though when I bring up a point that isn't in your reference material, you either ignore it or declare it is irrelevant without actually showing that it is irrelevant.

P.S my handle is thehomer with only one "m".

thehomer:

I did not say it was your position, I'm simply pointing out that if you do not know the reasons for the evil, then you cannot say he is good. If you claim ignorance of the reasons for the evil we see, then is it not possible that the God you're talking about is actually evil and that there actually are no reasons for the evil we see?

I can see that we will be going round in circles on this one.You cannot make a sound argument from " We do not know God's reasons for allowing evil, then it follows that there are actually no good reasons for evil".

I haven't forgotten that but you seem to have forgotten that the point of the argument is to show that such a God actually doesn't exist. So, if the argument is sound, such a God actually doesn't exist. So if you're actually accepting that the argument is sound, the conclusion that follows is that such a God doesn't exist.

I am saying the argument you are presenting is a new argument and not the Problem Of Evil.You MUST assume first that God is Good for there to be a problem of evil.And secondly, your argument that since we do not know God's reasons for allowing evil, then it follows that he does not have any good reasons, is invalid.Simply because you cannot make such a conclusion based on lack of knowledge on your part on God's reasons.

What you also should keep in mind is that I am offering you a way out of the argument which is that the God you're talking about is amoral. And understand that the point of the argument is to show that such a God doesn't exist.

You are offering me a way out, how kind of you.You are offering a new argument.Your argument is:-

If God is Good, and he has good reasons for allowing evil, then we should be able to know these reasons,since we do not know these reasons, then it follows that God is amoral.

No it isn't totally out of the discussion at hand because we still have to determine whether or not the God you're talking about is actually good not just defined as being good otherwise, one could easily end up destroying the meanings of words. You may wish to do that by limiting the discussion to abstracts rather than actually looking at what the Bible says the God did but I'm still asking you why you want to do that.

Yes it is out of the discussion. You are the one bringing the Problem of Evil and asking, if God is Good, All knowing and All powerful, why does evil exist?But if what you want to discuss is how do we know God is Good, then i will point out to you that you have abandoned the problem of evil.You have now moved to Moral Epistemology,Semantics,Ontology etc.And this is where the Moral Argument comes in.

You see, you're vacillating between the Gods under discussion. Since we've been talking about the Christian God, I don't see how you can separate that God from the Bible.
Also, it looks as though you want to redefine what it means to be omnibenevolent. Claiming that minimizing pain plays no part in deciding whether or not a person is benevolent actually destroys the meaning of pain or benevolence. Can you consider someone who is indifferent to your pain as being benevolent towards you?

Ofcourse i did not say that minimizing pain plays no part in God's Omnibenevolence, i said it is not the primary role of his all-loving nature.I also said that being all-loving does not entail maximizing pleasure since there are more important virtues and goods to be obtained according to the Christian Worldview.I said Soul Building, Preserving Free Will and getting a personal relationship with God are all much more important than minimizing pain.

You are the one who has the burden of qualifying your statement that a benevolent God should prioritize Maximizing of pleasure.

No, there is another world where more people can come to know God and that is Heaven.

Yes ofcourse, we are talking about earth here aren't we?

Again, if you cannot show that there is a morally sufficient reason why God allows diseases like childhood cancers, then the best you're left with is agnosticism on whether or not the God is good or an amoral God.

Sorry, it does not work that way.I do not have to show anything of the sort.You have the burden of proof of showing that an Omniscient and All-loving God lacks a good reason for allowing such evil.How You cannot abscond your duties here.

I will keep reminding you that you should first own the Problem Of Evil.It is your argument.You have asked me, if God Exists,and he is all loving and omniscient, why does he allow evil,and i am saying he may have good morally sufficient reasons to allow such evil. And as long as this is even possibly true, then you do not have case.I do not have to explain these reasons,because, it does not follow that since i do not know these reasons, then God does not have good reasons for allowing such evil.

It is your burden now, to make this argument sound:-

If we do not know God's reasons for allowing evil,then it follows that God is not good or amoral.I will be really interested to see how you can make a sound argument with those premises.